Today we have had a case getting great publicity of a brain dead air head Gemma Worrall who tweeted about UK President Barraco Barner, amusing though her ignorance is, it is less amusing when the reality sets in that she has a vote at the next election, along with many other less than bright individuals

 

Should the government bring in a rule that people have to pass a test at the ballot box about current affairs, say 5-10 questions about the UK and current affairs and get a certain number right, before they are given their voting form and a right to vote?

 

Or should people like professionals, graduates, entrepreneurs etc perhaps be given double votes?

 

Or should we just accept that hundreds of thousands if not millions of Gemma Worrall's can decide the fate of this country?

Yes. We should also stop all minorities and anyone who isn't a middle class, well educated, Caucasian male earning over £30k a year who has never claimed benefits for anything (even when he was entitled to them) and owns his own home from voting too. Just to be safe.

 

Being serious though, of course not. That's ludicrous to even suggest. I might not agree with HOW they pick who they want to vote or why, or indeed even WHO, but that's the same as anyone really, being more educated doesn't make you politically superior or mean your vote is more 'valid'.

Voting in a modern democracy requires everyone to be given equal chance to choose who they wish to run the country. Anything else would be unequal, and rigging the electorate in a certain way.

 

I don't think there's any way you can put up a valid argument for this, Craig. If any citizen wishes to exercise their right (this... group - I really hesitate to group them as that's borderline offensive and apologies for the generalisation - may well be the ones who won't use their vote) they should be able.

Of course. I mean just because she's like that, it's obviously completely correct to assume that everyone is like that and we definitely can't have that. In fact why stop there? Why not chuck 'em all out the country until they can answer these questions frankly and decisively? That'll teach 'em.

Edited March 7, 201411 yr by Chez Wombat

The current affairs test would not be tough, it would be like

 

'Name the prime minister'

'Name the chancellor'

'Name the leader of the opposition'

 

A series of simple and obvious questions that anyone should really know, those that fail the test lose their right to vote at the election, that was the general consensus around the office today at what should be done to weed out the truly ignorant like her type, so thought would see what BJ users would do :)

No, sorry, of course not Craig.

 

Barraco Barner - love it! :w00t:

Edited March 7, 201411 yr by Common Sense

Initially, when I read the title, I thought the idea was ludicrous and totally against the idea of a democracy but having just read your latest post, I may agree as long as they would only be asked a very simple question relating to the politics of today. For example, 'who is the latest Prime Minister?', 'what are the three main political parties?' 'which party is currently in power?' 'name a policy from one of the three parties' as this would show an awareness of what they are voting about. I have seen around me a lot of young people who don't have a clue about Prime Ministers and politics but still think they can express political views, this was mostly seen around the time of Margaret Thatcher's death when many celebrations where coming from my generation and I knew that a lot of them didn't have much of an idea about politics and, more specifically, her time in power.

Edited March 7, 201411 yr by Rabbit Heart

Despite going against everything that a democracy is, the test would be irrelevant as people who vote tend to be people who want to vote, and could Google any such tests, this would probably just lead to discrimination against people with mental disabilites and dyslexia.

i dont know anything about politics, so i would fail your little test, but i wouldnt define myself as 'thick'... so would i be allowed to vote or not? :unsure: :o

Today we have had a case getting great publicity of a brain dead air head Gemma Worrall who tweeted about UK President Barraco Barner, amusing though her ignorance is, it is less amusing when the reality sets in that she has a vote at the next election, along with many other less than bright individuals

 

Should the government bring in a rule that people have to pass a test at the ballot box about current affairs, say 5-10 questions about the UK and current affairs and get a certain number right, before they are given their voting form and a right to vote?

 

Or should people like professionals, graduates, entrepreneurs etc perhaps be given double votes?

 

Or should we just accept that hundreds of thousands if not millions of Gemma Worrall's can decide the fate of this country?

Absolutely. The first move should be to prevent people who think the plural of Worrall is Worrall's from voting.

Also, surely people that have no interest in politics probably won't bother voting in the first place? Assumption maybe, but if you don't know who's running the country, I doubt you'd care enough to vote?

Edited March 7, 201411 yr by Chez Wombat

The current affairs test would not be tough, it would be like

 

'Name the prime minister'

'Name the chancellor'

'Name the leader of the opposition'

 

A series of simple and obvious questions that anyone should really know, those that fail the test lose their right to vote at the election, that was the general consensus around the office today at what should be done to weed out the truly ignorant like her type, so thought would see what BJ users would do :)

How are any of these question considered simple and obvious tho? I for one wouldn't know who the hell the chancellor in Holland is. Just because I wouldn't know this, would that make me thick and not being able to choose who I vote for?

How are any of these question considered simple and obvious tho? I for one wouldn't know who the hell the chancellor in Holland is. Just because I wouldn't know this, would that make me thick and not being able to choose who I vote for?

 

 

To be fair, everyone of voting age should know who the Chancellor and PM are.

To be fair, everyone of voting age should know who the Chancellor and PM are.

 

Why? I'd much rather know someone had thought through an opinion on politics in general, rather than knowing personalities. That's just trivia, at the end of the day.

 

As an aside, on this Gemma Worrall person - I love that the top-rated comment on the Daily Mail article is "Ha ha ha ha she should work for the Daily Mail".

To be fair, everyone of voting age should know who the Chancellor and PM are.

Why would you want to know who the person is? I'm interested in what their plans for my country are, not their names

Why would you want to know who the person is? I'm interested in what their plans for my country are, not their names

 

It's not particularly political but just good general knowledge. Every adult should know who the US President is too imo.

Why would you want to ban yourself from voting Craig?

:D

Why would you want to know who the person is? I'm interested in what their plans for my country are, not their names

How on Earth do you expect to learn their policies without coming across their names? :mellow:

Why would you want to ban yourself from voting Craig?

 

Dear boy i can assure you i would pass any such test with flying colours, we did a test today at work to see who could name most in the current cabinet, and i came top with 14 :)